Guido Mukk wrote:
what a heck this is anyway?
Giro guys can ride tour again..back to 90 's?
That was my thinking exactly, this was only possible in good old EPO days.
Yes, they are definitely on EPO and all the other good stuff. Thomas's time up Alpe d Huez 41.20, Pantani 36.40. 4 minutes and 40 seconds difference. Without considering 20+ years of improvement in training methods, efficiency on the bike and technology in terms of bike and kit etc.
Salbutamol is a hell of a drug.
Pantani did it on a stage where Alpe D'Huez was the only climb.
Yesterday it was Madeleine ridden pretty fast because the breakaway hasn't established yet by then and also Croix de Fer ridden pretty fast because of Kruijswijk.
And then favourites lost over a minute by playing mindgames allowing Nibbles with a broken vertebrae back and Landa multiple times.
Check your facts before commenting again dumbass
I checked my facts before commenting, and the facts say that the time they did up Alpe d' Huez this year doesn't even reach the top 100 fastest times up the climb. The stage this year was hard, yes, but Sky still had kwiato, castro and bernal after the Croix de Fer, which means they didn't go full gas in the climbs because they knew they would gain minutes on Kruijswijk in the downhill and flats. In case you didn't notice, the Sky riders did a leadout in the first half of the climb before the favourites started attacking.
No matter how hard this stage and the previous stages was, that doesn't make up nearly 5 minutes.
Realistically, todays peloton should be riding faster up climbs than they did 20 years ago for obvious reasons, but they're not. Instead they are going way slower. Wouldn't you agree that is a sign of less doping?
Well, you should double-check then....the time was 41:16, not 41:20 and it doesn't put him outside of the top 100, but exactly at 25th fastest. 2 seconds faster than Armstrong in 2003 btw.
You compared it to Armstrong. That's definitive proof of doping isn't it?
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
As far as I think, this is not the point, Team Sky can be the whitest team of whole Tour de France (something of which I reserve many doubts), it doesn't matter, what is really frustrating for cycling fans is to see their sport played with money, lawyers and subterfuges, moreover depriving all the show that this sport was (and sometimes still be), cannibalizing races destroying every opponent with an ascertained caught rider. We are not asking nothing too big, just 6 month of ban and put everyone at the same level
df_Trek wrote:
As far as I think, this is not the point, Team Sky can be the whitest team of whole Tour de France (something of which I reserve many doubts), it doesn't matter, what is really frustrating for cycling fans is to see their sport played with money, lawyers and subterfuges, moreover depriving all the show that this sport was (and sometimes still be), cannibalizing races destroying every opponent with an ascertained caught rider. We are not asking nothing too big, just 6 month of ban and put everyone at the same level
You're just asking for a cleared rider to be banned to make it 'fair'? Yes, that sounds perfectly reasonable. Why don't we ban Lewis Hamilton and Serena Williams while we are at it to give someone else a chance.
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
This is very offtopic but hey this forum is not as active as it used to be anyways.
One dude compares times up Alpe d'Huez in completely different circumstances and the other one rather delusionally believes Froome is 100% clean because he got cleared of his case whereas Ulissi and Petacchi got banned for several months for less Salbutamol.
And its not even true that a Sky rider never got caught. Tiernan-Locke.
I mean this discussion is a joke and a waste of time.
Kirchen_75 wrote:
This is very offtopic but hey this forum is not as active as it used to be anyways.
One dude compares times up Alpe d'Huez in completely different circumstances and the other one rather delusionally believes Froome is 100% clean because he got cleared of his case whereas Ulissi and Petacchi got banned for several months for less Salbutamol.
And its not even true that a Sky rider never got caught. Tiernan-Locke.
I mean this discussion is a joke and a waste of time.
Tiernan Locke was banned for an offense carried out before he signed for Sky. No Sky rider has ever been banned. And I'm not delusional. I am looking at the facts. It is a waste of time if people continue to say its a fact sky are doping.
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
Guido Mukk wrote:
what a heck this is anyway?
Giro guys can ride tour again..back to 90 's?
That was my thinking exactly, this was only possible in good old EPO days.
Yes, they are definitely on EPO and all the other good stuff. Thomas's time up Alpe d Huez 41.20, Pantani 36.40. 4 minutes and 40 seconds difference. Without considering 20+ years of improvement in training methods, efficiency on the bike and technology in terms of bike and kit etc.
Salbutamol is a hell of a drug.
Pantani did it on a stage where Alpe D'Huez was the only climb.
Yesterday it was Madeleine ridden pretty fast because the breakaway hasn't established yet by then and also Croix de Fer ridden pretty fast because of Kruijswijk.
And then favourites lost over a minute by playing mindgames allowing Nibbles with a broken vertebrae back and Landa multiple times.
Check your facts before commenting again dumbass
I checked my facts before commenting, and the facts say that the time they did up Alpe d' Huez this year doesn't even reach the top 100 fastest times up the climb. The stage this year was hard, yes, but Sky still had kwiato, castro and bernal after the Croix de Fer, which means they didn't go full gas in the climbs because they knew they would gain minutes on Kruijswijk in the downhill and flats. In case you didn't notice, the Sky riders did a leadout in the first half of the climb before the favourites started attacking.
No matter how hard this stage and the previous stages was, that doesn't make up nearly 5 minutes.
Realistically, todays peloton should be riding faster up climbs than they did 20 years ago for obvious reasons, but they're not. Instead they are going way slower. Wouldn't you agree that is a sign of less doping?
Well, you should double-check then....the time was 41:16, not 41:20 and it doesn't put him outside of the top 100, but exactly at 25th fastest. 2 seconds faster than Armstrong in 2003 btw.
Whether they did 41:16 or 41:20 doesn't really matter, a 65kg rider would have to go around 386-387 watts average to reach that time up a 13,8km climb with 8,1% avg grade. Which is extremely good, but it is not unbelievable. Compare it to those fastest times and you would have to go close to 450 watts average which is crazy. Alberto Contador posted a picture on Instagram a week ago where he did 460 watts for a 20 minute test with a bodyweight of 61,6 kg when he was preparing for the tour.
My point is that there is a huge difference in what happened back in the EPO days and what happens today. I'm not a Sky fan either, I don't like how they sign world class riders and turn them into boring domestiques, but they get a lot of shit from people who have no idea what they're talking about.
There are a lot of funny people out there who think that salbutamol is the reason Froome has won Tour de France x4. Research shows that salbutamol has no significant performance effect on healthy lungs. Probably 70% of all professional endurance athletes uses it, including Nibali who unfortunately crashed out on Alpe d' Huez.
df_Trek wrote:
As far as I think, this is not the point, Team Sky can be the whitest team of whole Tour de France (something of which I reserve many doubts), it doesn't matter, what is really frustrating for cycling fans is to see their sport played with money, lawyers and subterfuges, moreover depriving all the show that this sport was (and sometimes still be), cannibalizing races destroying every opponent with an ascertained caught rider. We are not asking nothing too big, just 6 month of ban and put everyone at the same level
No, the primary reason why people hate Sky is their doping and that's what I am most concerned about. As a fan of Contador and Valverde, I am glad both got caught and banned. If Valv gets busted again ala Samu Sanchez, then that's a good victory for anti-doping, too.
It helps that Sky - next to their blatant doping - have adopted a holy-than-thou approach, drive a shitty pr machine, turn donkeys into race horses, and flood the market with murdoch money. Good reasons to dislike them but the main reason why they are target of hate is their doping, never forget that.
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
No, the primary reason why people hate Sky is their doping and that's what I am most concerned about. As a fan of Contador and Valverde, I am glad both got caught and banned. If Valv gets busted again ala Samu Sanchez, then that's a good victory for anti-doping, too.
It helps that Sky - next to their blatant doping - have adopted a holy-than-thou approach, drive a shitty pr machine, turn donkeys into race horses, and flood the market with murdoch money. Good reasons to dislike them but the main reason why they are target of hate is their doping, never forget that.
maybe you misunderstood my post, I'm exactly saying that, they are still racing with a caught doper (+ aggravating they kill the races with those), and with same follow up there were different outcomes
You're just asking for a cleared rider to be banned to make it 'fair'? Yes, that sounds perfectly reasonable. Why don't we ban Lewis Hamilton and Serena Williams while we are at it to give someone else a chance.
The meanings of "cleared" about Froome is very interpretable, because like his lawyers managed to get was: "We can't say if he was doped or not". And what I'm asking is very different, what does Lewis Hamilton has to do with that? He was never caught doped, I don't ask a cycling without Sky (or whoever win systematically), I'm saying that there is no equal treatment. Froome 2000 nothing, Ulissi 1900 banned, Petacchi 1360 banned. That's my reason of complaining
No, the primary reason why people hate Sky is their doping and that's what I am most concerned about. As a fan of Contador and Valverde, I am glad both got caught and banned. If Valv gets busted again ala Samu Sanchez, then that's a good victory for anti-doping, too.
It helps that Sky - next to their blatant doping - have adopted a holy-than-thou approach, drive a shitty pr machine, turn donkeys into race horses, and flood the market with murdoch money. Good reasons to dislike them but the main reason why they are target of hate is their doping, never forget that.
maybe you misunderstood my post, I'm exactly saying that, they are still racing with a caught doper (+ aggravating they kill the races with those), and with same follow up there were different outcomes
You're just asking for a cleared rider to be banned to make it 'fair'? Yes, that sounds perfectly reasonable. Why don't we ban Lewis Hamilton and Serena Williams while we are at it to give someone else a chance.
The meanings of "cleared" about Froome is very interpretable, because like his lawyers managed to get was: "We can't say if he was doped or not". And what I'm asking is very different, what does Lewis Hamilton has to do with that? He was never caught doped, I don't ask a cycling without Sky (or whoever win systematically), I'm saying that there is no equal treatment. Froome 2000 nothing, Ulissi 1900 banned, Petacchi 1360 banned. That's my reason of complaining
Frome was cleared and is therefore currently innocent. Why should he be banned. Petacchi and Ulissi are nothing to do with sky or Froome.
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
No, the primary reason why people hate Sky is their doping and that's what I am most concerned about. As a fan of Contador and Valverde, I am glad both got caught and banned. If Valv gets busted again ala Samu Sanchez, then that's a good victory for anti-doping, too.
It helps that Sky - next to their blatant doping - have adopted a holy-than-thou approach, drive a shitty pr machine, turn donkeys into race horses, and flood the market with murdoch money. Good reasons to dislike them but the main reason why they are target of hate is their doping, never forget that.
maybe you misunderstood my post, I'm exactly saying that, they are still racing with a caught doper (+ aggravating they kill the races with those), and with same follow up there were different outcomes
You're just asking for a cleared rider to be banned to make it 'fair'? Yes, that sounds perfectly reasonable. Why don't we ban Lewis Hamilton and Serena Williams while we are at it to give someone else a chance.
The meanings of "cleared" about Froome is very interpretable, because like his lawyers managed to get was: "We can't say if he was doped or not". And what I'm asking is very different, what does Lewis Hamilton has to do with that? He was never caught doped, I don't ask a cycling without Sky (or whoever win systematically), I'm saying that there is no equal treatment. Froome 2000 nothing, Ulissi 1900 banned, Petacchi 1360 banned. That's my reason of complaining
Frome was cleared and is therefore currently innocent. Why should he be banned. Petacchi and Ulissi are nothing to do with sky or Froome.
So you're choosing to ignore the double standard put up for Froome. You have to concede that Froome should not have been cleared as the are precedents. If you keep using that Froome was cleared as an argument there's really no point in discussing this any further.
No, the primary reason why people hate Sky is their doping and that's what I am most concerned about. As a fan of Contador and Valverde, I am glad both got caught and banned. If Valv gets busted again ala Samu Sanchez, then that's a good victory for anti-doping, too.
It helps that Sky - next to their blatant doping - have adopted a holy-than-thou approach, drive a shitty pr machine, turn donkeys into race horses, and flood the market with murdoch money. Good reasons to dislike them but the main reason why they are target of hate is their doping, never forget that.
maybe you misunderstood my post, I'm exactly saying that, they are still racing with a caught doper (+ aggravating they kill the races with those), and with same follow up there were different outcomes
You're just asking for a cleared rider to be banned to make it 'fair'? Yes, that sounds perfectly reasonable. Why don't we ban Lewis Hamilton and Serena Williams while we are at it to give someone else a chance.
The meanings of "cleared" about Froome is very interpretable, because like his lawyers managed to get was: "We can't say if he was doped or not". And what I'm asking is very different, what does Lewis Hamilton has to do with that? He was never caught doped, I don't ask a cycling without Sky (or whoever win systematically), I'm saying that there is no equal treatment. Froome 2000 nothing, Ulissi 1900 banned, Petacchi 1360 banned. That's my reason of complaining
Frome was cleared and is therefore currently innocent. Why should he be banned. Petacchi and Ulissi are nothing to do with sky or Froome.
So you're choosing to ignore the double standard put up for Froome. You have to concede that Froome should not have been cleared as the are precedents. If you keep using that Froome was cleared as an argument there's really no point in discussing this any further.
How is what has happened before sky or froomes fault. Take it up with WADA and UCI.
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
No, the primary reason why people hate Sky is their doping and that's what I am most concerned about. As a fan of Contador and Valverde, I am glad both got caught and banned. If Valv gets busted again ala Samu Sanchez, then that's a good victory for anti-doping, too.
It helps that Sky - next to their blatant doping - have adopted a holy-than-thou approach, drive a shitty pr machine, turn donkeys into race horses, and flood the market with murdoch money. Good reasons to dislike them but the main reason why they are target of hate is their doping, never forget that.
maybe you misunderstood my post, I'm exactly saying that, they are still racing with a caught doper (+ aggravating they kill the races with those), and with same follow up there were different outcomes
You're just asking for a cleared rider to be banned to make it 'fair'? Yes, that sounds perfectly reasonable. Why don't we ban Lewis Hamilton and Serena Williams while we are at it to give someone else a chance.
The meanings of "cleared" about Froome is very interpretable, because like his lawyers managed to get was: "We can't say if he was doped or not". And what I'm asking is very different, what does Lewis Hamilton has to do with that? He was never caught doped, I don't ask a cycling without Sky (or whoever win systematically), I'm saying that there is no equal treatment. Froome 2000 nothing, Ulissi 1900 banned, Petacchi 1360 banned. That's my reason of complaining
Frome was cleared and is therefore currently innocent. Why should he be banned. Petacchi and Ulissi are nothing to do with sky or Froome.
So you're choosing to ignore the double standard put up for Froome. You have to concede that Froome should not have been cleared as the are precedents. If you keep using that Froome was cleared as an argument there's really no point in discussing this any further.
How is what has happened before sky or froomes fault. Take it up with WADA and UCI.
No, the primary reason why people hate Sky is their doping and that's what I am most concerned about. As a fan of Contador and Valverde, I am glad both got caught and banned. If Valv gets busted again ala Samu Sanchez, then that's a good victory for anti-doping, too.
It helps that Sky - next to their blatant doping - have adopted a holy-than-thou approach, drive a shitty pr machine, turn donkeys into race horses, and flood the market with murdoch money. Good reasons to dislike them but the main reason why they are target of hate is their doping, never forget that.
maybe you misunderstood my post, I'm exactly saying that, they are still racing with a caught doper (+ aggravating they kill the races with those), and with same follow up there were different outcomes
You're just asking for a cleared rider to be banned to make it 'fair'? Yes, that sounds perfectly reasonable. Why don't we ban Lewis Hamilton and Serena Williams while we are at it to give someone else a chance.
The meanings of "cleared" about Froome is very interpretable, because like his lawyers managed to get was: "We can't say if he was doped or not". And what I'm asking is very different, what does Lewis Hamilton has to do with that? He was never caught doped, I don't ask a cycling without Sky (or whoever win systematically), I'm saying that there is no equal treatment. Froome 2000 nothing, Ulissi 1900 banned, Petacchi 1360 banned. That's my reason of complaining
Frome was cleared and is therefore currently innocent. Why should he be banned. Petacchi and Ulissi are nothing to do with sky or Froome.
So you're choosing to ignore the double standard put up for Froome. You have to concede that Froome should not have been cleared as the are precedents. If you keep using that Froome was cleared as an argument there's really no point in discussing this any further.
How is what has happened before sky or froomes fault. Take it up with WADA and UCI.
Ulissi and Petacchi took much salbutamol.
Ulissi and Petacchi cheated.
Ulissi and Petacchi got a ban.
Froome takes even more salbutamol.
UCI does not ban him
Did he still cheat?
Not according to the decision to clear him.
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
